It's bad enough that the US is going to war in such a blatant act of aggression (justified or not). It's bad enough that the only reason anyone gives a damn about Iraq is because of the oil. It's bad enough that our leaders are willing to risk the ruination of long-lasting international relationships to satisfy their goals.
But the revelation that the majority of the American public just doesn't care about all this is shocking, saddening, and quite disturbing.
Well, given the choice between watching Jerry Seinfeld comment about inane bullshit and Wolf Blitzer getting visibly aroused by large explosions, I can't blame them. I can only handle the Jingoistic Circle-Jerk on CNN for so long before switching to 'real' news coverage that your country sadly lacks.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've had CNN on in the background for most of the day. Shortly before 2p.m. (CST), they were talking to journalist May Ying Welsh, who has remained in Baghdad. She was talking about how much more severe the "A-Day" attack was, in comparison to the prior days of bombing. I think she was implying that the casualties may be much greater as well, when she mentioned that, during the lighter bombings, there were 37 civilian casualties.
Barely more than two hours later, the exact same station stated that "there have been no reports of civilian casualties".
I mean, lying is one thing, but do they really need to be insulting and/or moronic about it?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Barely more than two hours later, the exact same station stated that "there have been no reports of civilian casualties".
I mean, lying is one thing, but do they really need to be insulting and/or moronic about it?
Gee, y'think mabye the Military told the network to say that? I'ts not like the smart bombs are smart enough to only kill enemy troops. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I can see it now...a bomb flying up to a guy on the street in Baghdad...
"Excuse me, good sir, but are you The Enemy?" "Uhhh...no." "Oh. Well, could you direct me towards some? I really have the need to explode soon." "Um...try down that street." "Thank you!"
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I'm not a liberty to say right now, but the US and the British military both have weapons that are far smarter than what you have been told. We have weapons that can kill everything inside a building and leave the building untouched by just exploding 9they're not dirty). We got something called Daisy Cutters that can explode and create a expanding shockwave to cut infantry in half.
Recently the military announced that they exploded a 20 kiloton conventional bomb. The funny thing is that we already possessed that (most militay are aware of it, part of our Aircombat Training) such bomb but five times as powerful.
We can blow up a bus between two buildings only a foot apart from the bus, and leave no trace of that bus or that bomb exploding. Soon or later, we'll have bombs and missiles that probably can do what Shik has said.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Um... twenty KILOTONS? No.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You know our educational system is in a shambles when people have such a poor grasp of context.
"There were thirty seven casualties during the lighter bombing." "Shock and Awe is now going on." "There have been no (reported) civilian casualties."
Translation: "The thirty-seven who were casualties are still casualties. No new casualties due to the shock-and-awe campaign have been reported yet. We trust you to be intelligent enough to realize we're talking about two different phases of casualties here."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I think she was implying that the casualties may be much greater as well, when she mentioned that, during the lighter bombings, there were 37 civilian casualties.
Barely more than two hours later, the exact same station stated that "there have been no reports of civilian casualties".
I mean, lying is one thing, but do they really need to be insulting and/or moronic about it?
TSN and Rob are both wrong.
Key word: REPORTED casualties. So, while under a (realtively) heavier bombardment, the reporter mentioned that in an earlier, lighter bombardment, there had been 37 injured. The news station didn't not report later that there had been NO casualties due to the heavier bombardment, but rather, that none had yet been reported from whomever it is does that type of reporting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's what I said, that no NEW casualties had been REPORTED from the NEW campaign yet.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I've noticed that the reporters in Iraq call every bomb that Iraq drops a "Scud", but reports I see on the ticker tape, say that no Scuds have been fired.
I haven't been watching closely. I saw enough during Vietnam and Gulf WarI to do me for the rest of my life.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
As I said before, I have heard "two scuds" everywhere, and believe the mention of "no scuds" referred to a single day, one when no launches of scuds occurred.
Until I see an official announcement otherwise, I'm staying with that.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
quote:Um... twenty KILOTONS? No.
Um... yes. About two to three weeks ago, the military announced that they did drop a bomb that equaled a 20 kiloton atomic bomb. I happen to know this for a fact because AOs which i deal with everyday deal with such bombs. The military will not tell the press everything that they have or know. What, do you think they're stupid? What's the point of being classified if they tell it to the news?
Anyway, it's not a nuclear scale bomb that can wipe out cities, but just the bomb when it explodes creates a small explosion as powerful as a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb.
Then again, Omega, you appear to know more than i do about the military, so maybe I'll believe you. Obviously my 6 months of air warfare was for nothing.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Forgive me, but was it not a twenty-thousand POUND bomb? Ain't no chemical that would be equivalent to a 20. Thousand. TONS. Of TNT that is still going to be light enough to carry on a plane, unless they've redefined the laws of physics on me.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
a 20 kiloton conventional bomb,i don't think it would have to way 20,000 tons to have a blast equivalent of 20 kilotons. anyway, I'd have to see it to believe it. even then, it'd better make a very big explosion!
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well, let's see. 1 KT is about 1.2e12 calories. So, 20 KT is 2.4e13 calories, which is 1.005e14 J. So, say something has the specific heat capacity of water and can create a really big explosion (unlikely!), that something would have to weigh 8.03e7 kg or 7.9e4 tons or 79 KT. Quite heavy.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
And considering that it's a fuel-air explosive....that sounds about right.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'The thirty-seven who were casualties are still casualties. No new casualties due to the shock-and-awe campaign have been reported yet. We trust you to be intelligent enough to realize we're talking about two different phases of casualties here.'"
Well, of course, that's not what they said, but okay. I won't burst your fantasy world.
As for the use of the term "reported casualties", that's not what they said, either. They said "there have been no reports of civilian casualties". Which is a lie because, two hours earlier, they themselves aired a report of civilian casualties.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Yes, 20 kilotons of TNT and it's not convetnional like you think. Let's put it this way it's more conventional then a nulcear bomb. Also, that's declassified data now. From what I learned they had this bomb for the past fifteen years or so. Some think (mostly AO's, they handle and undersatnd ordanance) think that they have more powerful bombs than that.
Like I said it's a not nulcear scale explosion, just the power of the explosion (which is the size of a normal bomb or so) is equal to a 20 kiloton explosion. This is enough to vaporize bunkers made of steel a foot thick.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
20 kilotons IS a nuclear-scale explosion.
20,000 POUNDS is not.
For Comparison, "Little Boy," dropped on Hiroshima was a 12.5 kiloton bomb.
So what you're saying, Matrix, is that this "conventional" bomb is nearly twice the strength of an early nuclear device.
No.
The great big bomb successfully tested recently was the MOAB, and it's a 20,000 POUND bomb. Not 20,000 TONS.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I have read about a 21,000 pound bomb that is dropped out of a C-130, minimum sized aircraft, but I don't know the exact data for it. Since a C-130 is a big slow aircraft the ADA defense of the area it was to operate in would have to be minimal.
There are explosives that have more kick, pound for pound, than TNT, but I don't think that there is one with 1,000 times the explosive force. Then again, I don't know what type of aircraft they were replacing the SR-71 with either, or why light has different wave length and acts like waves and particles.
CNN annoys me to no end, how many times does RPG have to be explained to people?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The 20-kilopounder MOAB isn't so clumsy that it would have to be deployed from a C-130. That was deliberate disinformation given in connection with the test firing, to make the weapon appear like the older Daisy Cutter. In fact, MOAB is a winged standoff weapon that looks much like a cruise missile, just sans the engine. It's got those fancy "lattice" fins familiar from new Russian missiles, too, in addition to the two conventional main wings. I think MOAB was the cover girl in a recent Time or Newsweek? In a form-fitting orange costume no less.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
It was on Newsweek.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If it is the one I read about, didn't see a pick that I remember, the warhead was 20,000 pounds, not including the casing and JDAMs type fin assemblies, which means that a B-52 could only carry, at best, 3, depending on how ungainly it was made.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Oh, well my mistake. But I can tell you that there are bombs out there in the low kiloton range. The only reason why I though they dropped a 20 kiloton bomb was because duirng training fighter training, one B-2 dropped a huge bomb only around 5 tons in weight but measured an explosion nearly equal to a 3.5 kiloton explosion. Not nulcear scale.
Also, believe it or not there are bmbs out there that no one knows about including the pilots who drop them. Many POs, CPOs, and even Officers have often stated that they have seen weird bombs that they can not ID, even though they have full qualifications on them. One of them was the Dasiy Cutter until it was semi-publically released a few years back.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Here is what MOAB-tablescraps I could lick up from Janes.Com after registering there. If I want the full image I have to pay money, a policy which I find is very-very-sneaky.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Here's more on the MOAB, and it's all for free.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
What has this got to do with friends? Is 20,000 pounds the weight of Chandler?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: As I said before, I have heard "two scuds" everywhere, and believe the mention of "no scuds" referred to a single day, one when no launches of scuds occurred.
Until I see an official announcement otherwise, I'm staying with that.
I think that if there had been any scuds fired it would have been major news, and been all over the press. That would be seen in the White House as vindication.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Depending on how my 'friend' gave it to me it would be a neat toy, just getting the C-130 to carry it around may cause a problem, unless, of course, that is how my 'friend' delivered it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kosh: I think that if there had been any scuds fired it would have been major news, and been all over the press. That would be seen in the White House as vindication.
quote: The missile would be at least the 12th that Iraq is believed to have fired into Kuwait since the Iraq war began. Most have been Scuds, but at least two others were identified as Chinese Silkworms, Kuwait officials said.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Odd. I always used Silkworms as shipkillers like Harpoon, or TLAMs like Tomahawk.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Kosh: I think that if there had been any scuds fired it would have been major news, and been all over the press. That would be seen in the White House as vindication.
quote: The missile would be at least the 12th that Iraq is believed to have fired into Kuwait since the Iraq war began. Most have been Scuds, but at least two others were identified as Chinese Silkworms, Kuwait officials said.
I stand corrected.
Since they have them, I'm surprised they haven't used them more. The chart at that link seems to indicate that the Scuds are the heaviest payload missiles they have, and our military is in range for the most part.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
